---
"So, no, we don't hate the rich. What we hate are the predators."
source
---
Joshua M Brown December 20th, 2011
Dear Jamie Dimon,
I hope this note finds you well.
I am writing to profess my utter disbelief at how little you seem to understand the current mood of the nation. In a story at Bloomberg today, you and a handful of fellow banker and billionaire "job creators" were quoted as believing that the horrific sentiment directed toward you from virtually all corners of America had something to do with how much money you had. I'd like to take a moment to disabuse you of this foolishness.
America is different than almost every other place on earth in that its citizenry reveres the wealthy and we are raised to believe that we can all one day join the ranks of the rich. The lack of a caste system or visible rungs of society's ladder is what separates our empire from so many fallen empires throughout history. In a nation bereft of royalty by virtue of its republican birth, the American people have done what any other resourceful people would do - we've created our own royalty and our royalty is the 1%. Not only do we not "hate the rich" as you and other em-bubbled plutocrats have postulated, in point of fact, we love them. We worship our rich to the point of obsession. The highest-rated television shows uniformly feature the unimaginably fabulous families of celebrities not to mention the housewives (real or otherwise) of the rich. We don't care what color they are or what religion they practice or where in the country they live or what channel their show is on - if they're rich, we are watching.
When Derek Jeter was toyed with by the New York Yankees when it came time for him to renew his next hundred million dollar contract, the people empathized with Derek Jeter. Sure, this disagreement essentially took place between one of the wealthiest organizations in the country and one of the wealthiest private citizens - but we rooted for Jeter to get his money. Nobody begrudged him a penny of it or wanted a piece of it or decried the fact that he was luckier than the rest of us. In the American psyche, Jeter was one of the good guys who was deservedly successful. He was one of us and an example of hard work paying off.
Likewise, when Steve Jobs died, he did so with more money than you or any of your "job alliance" buddies - ten times more than most of you, in fact. And upon his death the entire nation went into mourning. We set up makeshift shrines to his brilliance in front of Apple stores from coast to coast. His biography flew off the shelves and people bought Apple products and stock shares in his honor and in his memory. Does that strike you as the action of a populace that hates success?
No, Jamie, it is not that Americans hate successful people or the wealthy. In fact, it is just the opposite. We love the success stories in our midst and it is a distinctly American trait to believe that we can all follow in the footsteps of the elite, even though so few of us ever actually do.
So, no, we don't hate the rich. What we hate are the predators.
Please continue reading by clicking here
Showing posts with label resistance revolution money government greed corruption Federal reserve central banks market manipulatiion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label resistance revolution money government greed corruption Federal reserve central banks market manipulatiion. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Four former Mid-Missouri Bank officials banned from banking
---
This post was pilfered from The Joplin Globe website
Please note bracketed areas "[...]" are my highlights..
How does this [bullshit] pass for transparency?
---
December 19, 2011
Four former Mid-Missouri Bank officials banned from banking
By Wally Kennedy
news@joplinglobe.com
JOPLIN, Mo. — Four former officials with Mid-Missouri Bank have been banned from further participation in the banking and financial industry by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
Three of them also have been ordered to pay civil penalties.
Agreeing to the consent orders issued in October by the FDIC were Scott Rosenthal, former president and chief executive officer of Mid-Missouri Bank at 2230 E. 32nd St.; Frank B. McReynolds, a former senior vice president at that location; K. Chris Couch, a former executive vice president at that location; and Kayla Muskrat, a former loan officer at that location.
Rosenthal was ordered to pay civil penalties of $62,500; Couch, $50,000; and McReynolds, $13,500.
Rosenthal, formerly employed by the Hunte Corp., [could not be reached for comment] on Monday. Couch, who now works for a Joplin-based electrical supply company, [was unavailable for comment]. McReynolds, who also lives in the Joplin area, [could not be reached for comment] on Monday. Muskrat has an unlisted telephone number.
The bank employees were either fired or suspended in April 2007 when the bank announced it was launching an investigation in cooperation with the FDIC, the Missouri Division of Finance, the FBI and a bonding company.
At the time of the dismissals, Mid-Missouri Bank told its depositors and other customers that none of them were at risk.
A bank spokesman at the time said no credit had been extended to any customer beyond their ability to repay and that the incidents involving the employees had been going on for some time.
In agreeing to the consent orders, the four waived their right to a hearing of allegations that they violated the law, participated in unsafe and unsound banking practices and breached their fiduciary duties.
[Without admitting or denying any violations of the law or banking regulations], the four consented to the issuance of the orders by the FDIC.
LaJuan William-Young, spokeswoman for the FDIC, on Monday said the orders ban the former bank employees from working in the banking and financial industry. She said [she could not comment on or reveal the specific violations each respondent faced].
Travis Ford, spokesman for the Missouri Division of Finance, said the orders were issued by the FDIC. Because of that, [inquiries about the violations must be directed to the FDIC].
Ford said orders issued by the FDIC that relate to individuals “usually involve bad loans that put their bank at risk.’’
Eric McClure, president and chief executive officer of Springfield-based Mid-Missouri Bank, said, “We at Mid-Missouri Bank are absolutely dedicated to the Joplin community. [We are in good financial shape]. The actions by these individuals were more than four years ago. [We have moved on], and we’re thankful that justice does come around sometimes later than we wish.’’
McClure, who was named president of the bank in August 2010, said he is [not familiar with the incidents that were investigated]. As to their gravity, he said, “It has to be pretty serious for them to be banned from banking.’’
The FDIC, in its orders, said it had considered the matter and determined it [had reason to believe that the respondents had engaged or participated in violations of the law that would cause Mid-Missouri bank to suffer financial losses or other damage].
The FDIC said “such violations, practices and breaches of fiduciary duty involve personal dishonesty on the part of the respondent or demonstrate respondent’s [willful and continuing disregard for the safety or soundness of the bank].’’
The FDIC said its investigation showed the respondents’ “unfitness to serve’’ as a director or officer in the affairs of a bank.
Rosenthal, past president of the Joplin Area Chamber of Commerce, was employed from 1979 to 2001 by Southwest Missouri Bank, where he started as a part-time college teller, records show. He managed two locations for the bank in the Joplin market. [He also managed the bank’s investment portfolio] and handled trust department activities.
From September 2001 to April 2007, he was president of Bank of Joplin/Webb City Bank, managing six locations and more than 50 employees. During his tenure, the bank [grew total assets from $66 million to $275 million], moving from tenth in the marketplace to third.
Mid-Missouri Bank
On Aug. 1, 2006, Mid-Missouri Bank became the new name of the three Bank of Joplin locations and two Webb City Bank locations. Mid-Missouri Bank had been the parent bank of those locations since 1977.
This post was pilfered from The Joplin Globe website
Please note bracketed areas "[...]" are my highlights..
How does this [bullshit] pass for transparency?
---
December 19, 2011
Four former Mid-Missouri Bank officials banned from banking
By Wally Kennedy
news@joplinglobe.com
JOPLIN, Mo. — Four former officials with Mid-Missouri Bank have been banned from further participation in the banking and financial industry by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
Three of them also have been ordered to pay civil penalties.
Agreeing to the consent orders issued in October by the FDIC were Scott Rosenthal, former president and chief executive officer of Mid-Missouri Bank at 2230 E. 32nd St.; Frank B. McReynolds, a former senior vice president at that location; K. Chris Couch, a former executive vice president at that location; and Kayla Muskrat, a former loan officer at that location.
Rosenthal was ordered to pay civil penalties of $62,500; Couch, $50,000; and McReynolds, $13,500.
Rosenthal, formerly employed by the Hunte Corp., [could not be reached for comment] on Monday. Couch, who now works for a Joplin-based electrical supply company, [was unavailable for comment]. McReynolds, who also lives in the Joplin area, [could not be reached for comment] on Monday. Muskrat has an unlisted telephone number.
The bank employees were either fired or suspended in April 2007 when the bank announced it was launching an investigation in cooperation with the FDIC, the Missouri Division of Finance, the FBI and a bonding company.
At the time of the dismissals, Mid-Missouri Bank told its depositors and other customers that none of them were at risk.
A bank spokesman at the time said no credit had been extended to any customer beyond their ability to repay and that the incidents involving the employees had been going on for some time.
In agreeing to the consent orders, the four waived their right to a hearing of allegations that they violated the law, participated in unsafe and unsound banking practices and breached their fiduciary duties.
[Without admitting or denying any violations of the law or banking regulations], the four consented to the issuance of the orders by the FDIC.
LaJuan William-Young, spokeswoman for the FDIC, on Monday said the orders ban the former bank employees from working in the banking and financial industry. She said [she could not comment on or reveal the specific violations each respondent faced].
Travis Ford, spokesman for the Missouri Division of Finance, said the orders were issued by the FDIC. Because of that, [inquiries about the violations must be directed to the FDIC].
Ford said orders issued by the FDIC that relate to individuals “usually involve bad loans that put their bank at risk.’’
Eric McClure, president and chief executive officer of Springfield-based Mid-Missouri Bank, said, “We at Mid-Missouri Bank are absolutely dedicated to the Joplin community. [We are in good financial shape]. The actions by these individuals were more than four years ago. [We have moved on], and we’re thankful that justice does come around sometimes later than we wish.’’
McClure, who was named president of the bank in August 2010, said he is [not familiar with the incidents that were investigated]. As to their gravity, he said, “It has to be pretty serious for them to be banned from banking.’’
The FDIC, in its orders, said it had considered the matter and determined it [had reason to believe that the respondents had engaged or participated in violations of the law that would cause Mid-Missouri bank to suffer financial losses or other damage].
The FDIC said “such violations, practices and breaches of fiduciary duty involve personal dishonesty on the part of the respondent or demonstrate respondent’s [willful and continuing disregard for the safety or soundness of the bank].’’
The FDIC said its investigation showed the respondents’ “unfitness to serve’’ as a director or officer in the affairs of a bank.
Rosenthal, past president of the Joplin Area Chamber of Commerce, was employed from 1979 to 2001 by Southwest Missouri Bank, where he started as a part-time college teller, records show. He managed two locations for the bank in the Joplin market. [He also managed the bank’s investment portfolio] and handled trust department activities.
From September 2001 to April 2007, he was president of Bank of Joplin/Webb City Bank, managing six locations and more than 50 employees. During his tenure, the bank [grew total assets from $66 million to $275 million], moving from tenth in the marketplace to third.
Mid-Missouri Bank
On Aug. 1, 2006, Mid-Missouri Bank became the new name of the three Bank of Joplin locations and two Webb City Bank locations. Mid-Missouri Bank had been the parent bank of those locations since 1977.
Perhaps the most important thing you will ever read - Seriously
---
From oftwominds.com Charles Hugh Smith
---
2011: The Last (Debt-Consumerist) Christmas in America
December 20, 2011 (Mobile version)
The end of debt-based affluence: welcome to The Last Christmas in America (TLCIA).
Almost 35 years ago, as unemployment rose toward 10%, the January 1975 cover of Ramparts magazine blared: The End of Affluence: The Last Christmas in America. (TLCIA)
The article wasn't referring to the religious celebration; it was referring to the postwar concept of Christmas as the frenzied, exhausting year-end pinnacle of our one true secular faith, Consumption, a final orgy of buying and binging.
It is instructive to recall how the Federal government responded to unemployment, high inflation and rising budget deficits in the early 1970s: it began fudging numbers, manipulating data to mask the politically inconvenient realities of rising inflation, unemployment and deficits by playing switcheroo with Social Security Trust Funds, inflation data, etc.--games it continues to play in 2011 to cloak reality from the media-numbed public.
The market was not so easily fooled. The Bear market, reflecting the "real" recession, lasted 16 years, from 1967 to 1982. Now statistics are echoing that last great recession: rising prices for essentials, systemically high unemployment and stagnant wages while the corporate media and the organs of statistical manipulation (a.k.a. the sprawling, putrid public-private cesspool of the Ministry of Propaganda) trumpet "the return of growth" and skyrocketing corporate profits.
(Today's propaganda: housing starts blip up due to statistical noise, and though starts are less than half pre-recession levels, this is heralded as "evidence" that "strong growth is back.")
The difference between the postwar boom of 1946 and the boom that followed 1982 is the last boom was based on the explosive expansion of debt. People didn't save and invest in productive assets; they went into debt to consume more and to become a "bigger" persona via the miracle of credit.
I often use this chart to make this point: if credit had expanded along with GDP, then we'd be considerably less indebted. Instead, it required a vast expansion of debt--some $30 trillion more than the rise in GDP--to fuel the 1982-2000 boom.
From oftwominds.com Charles Hugh Smith
From oftwominds.com Charles Hugh Smith
---
2011: The Last (Debt-Consumerist) Christmas in America
December 20, 2011 (Mobile version)
The end of debt-based affluence: welcome to The Last Christmas in America (TLCIA).
Almost 35 years ago, as unemployment rose toward 10%, the January 1975 cover of Ramparts magazine blared: The End of Affluence: The Last Christmas in America. (TLCIA)
The article wasn't referring to the religious celebration; it was referring to the postwar concept of Christmas as the frenzied, exhausting year-end pinnacle of our one true secular faith, Consumption, a final orgy of buying and binging.
It is instructive to recall how the Federal government responded to unemployment, high inflation and rising budget deficits in the early 1970s: it began fudging numbers, manipulating data to mask the politically inconvenient realities of rising inflation, unemployment and deficits by playing switcheroo with Social Security Trust Funds, inflation data, etc.--games it continues to play in 2011 to cloak reality from the media-numbed public.
The market was not so easily fooled. The Bear market, reflecting the "real" recession, lasted 16 years, from 1967 to 1982. Now statistics are echoing that last great recession: rising prices for essentials, systemically high unemployment and stagnant wages while the corporate media and the organs of statistical manipulation (a.k.a. the sprawling, putrid public-private cesspool of the Ministry of Propaganda) trumpet "the return of growth" and skyrocketing corporate profits.
(Today's propaganda: housing starts blip up due to statistical noise, and though starts are less than half pre-recession levels, this is heralded as "evidence" that "strong growth is back.")
The difference between the postwar boom of 1946 and the boom that followed 1982 is the last boom was based on the explosive expansion of debt. People didn't save and invest in productive assets; they went into debt to consume more and to become a "bigger" persona via the miracle of credit.
I often use this chart to make this point: if credit had expanded along with GDP, then we'd be considerably less indebted. Instead, it required a vast expansion of debt--some $30 trillion more than the rise in GDP--to fuel the 1982-2000 boom.
From oftwominds.com Charles Hugh Smith
Priest Nearly Arrested at Council Meeting for Exercising First Amendment
---
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
December 19, 2011
In Florida, if you make an unflattering comparison about the abuse of government authority during an open forum at a city council meeting, you may face the possibly of being “out of order” and subject to removal by police.
Father Nathan Monk of Pensacola, Florida, faced just such a situation on Friday when members of the city council there ruled him out of order.
Monk had not raised his voice or threatened anybody. He merely stated in no uncertain terms that the government violated the civil liberties of several citizens who had spoken in opposition to proposed anti-homeless ordinances earlier in the week.
The council took umbrage and had the citizens removed after they made comparisons between the ordinances and Heinrich Himmler’s Final Solution.
“As Americans, we have the right to redress our government without fear of being arrested,” said Monk. “Whether or not they’re connecting dots from Hitler to George Wallace to Barney … you should be asking, ‘well what are we doing that’s allowing people to connect those dots?’ It was a sick and gross abuse of power.”
Council President Hall interrupted Monk. “Your time is up, sit down,” he said.
“No, I have a minute and 12 seconds left,” Monk said as he glanced at the timer on the speaker’s lectern.
“I’m ruling you out of order,” Hall said.
At that point the council had cops flank Monk.
The priest was not arrested and two council members stormed off in protest of the obvious dictatorial behavior of their fellow members.
The incident is more evidence that government – from the federal government all the way down to state and local government – is increasingly out of control and often flagrantly violates the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It treats citizens like subjects to be abused, culled for “revenue enhancement,” victimized by militarized police, and taxed relentlessly.
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
December 19, 2011
In Florida, if you make an unflattering comparison about the abuse of government authority during an open forum at a city council meeting, you may face the possibly of being “out of order” and subject to removal by police.
Father Nathan Monk of Pensacola, Florida, faced just such a situation on Friday when members of the city council there ruled him out of order.
Monk had not raised his voice or threatened anybody. He merely stated in no uncertain terms that the government violated the civil liberties of several citizens who had spoken in opposition to proposed anti-homeless ordinances earlier in the week.
The council took umbrage and had the citizens removed after they made comparisons between the ordinances and Heinrich Himmler’s Final Solution.
“As Americans, we have the right to redress our government without fear of being arrested,” said Monk. “Whether or not they’re connecting dots from Hitler to George Wallace to Barney … you should be asking, ‘well what are we doing that’s allowing people to connect those dots?’ It was a sick and gross abuse of power.”
Council President Hall interrupted Monk. “Your time is up, sit down,” he said.
“No, I have a minute and 12 seconds left,” Monk said as he glanced at the timer on the speaker’s lectern.
“I’m ruling you out of order,” Hall said.
At that point the council had cops flank Monk.
The priest was not arrested and two council members stormed off in protest of the obvious dictatorial behavior of their fellow members.
The incident is more evidence that government – from the federal government all the way down to state and local government – is increasingly out of control and often flagrantly violates the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It treats citizens like subjects to be abused, culled for “revenue enhancement,” victimized by militarized police, and taxed relentlessly.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
What the #government & #FED DON'T want you to realize - Wise up #ows
---
Many foreign dictators & hostile states are merely whores for American military aid.. For decades American government, American politicians, have been able to BUY whatever cooperation they seek in the world around us..
In short we create advanced weapons systems and LOAN money (fiat) to foreign tyrants, at interest, who agree to kill the right people with said United States financed weaponry.
U.S. Foreign Military Assistance <-- source
Program Descriptions Program Reports Budget Requests Other Documents USAID Greenbook
Program Descriptions
Listed below are several U.S. programs that provide foreign states with military and related assistance, directly and indirectly supporting U.S. arms transfers.
Foreign Military Financing: Foreign Military Financing refers to congressionally appropriated grants given to foreign governments to finance the purchase of American-made weapons, services and training. Since 1950, the US government has provided over $91 billion in FMF to militaries around the world. The vast majority of these funds goes to Israel and Egypt to reward them for making a cold peace in 1979.
Economic Support Fund: Congress established the economic support fund (ESF) to promote economic and political stability in strategically important regions where the United States has special security interests. The funds are provided on a grant basis and are available for a variety of economic purposes, like infrastructure and development projects. Although not intended for military expenditure, these grants allow the recipient government to free up its own money for military programs.
International Military Education and Training: International Military Education and Training (IMET) grants are given to foreign governments to pay for professional education in military management and technical training on US weapons systems. Over 2,000 courses are offered, including some on human rights and civil-military relations. This program is said by its proponents to promote positive military-to-military contacts, thereby familiarizing foreign officers with "US values and democratic processes," though critics argue there is too much emphasis on military skills and not enough on human rights. The Expanded IMET program offered to certain states only focuses on the latter.
Counter-Narcotics Assistance: Through International Narcotics Control programs, the US government provides funds for military equipment and training to overseas police and armed forces to combat the production and trafficking of illegal drugs. These funds are generally dedicated to the export of firearms and the refurbishment of surveillance aircraft, transport planes and helicopters.Additional counter-narcotics training and equipment is provided by the Department of Defense, the Drug Enforcement Agency and other agencies. In recent years, human rights abuses by military and police units receiving this aid - especially in Colombia - have intensified criticism of the program.
Non-Proliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs: This category of funding provides resources in support of a variety of security-related foreign policy objectives. Funds go to nuclear non-proliferation programs, anti-terrorism aid, demining activities, and - a new item in FY 2001 - small arms destruction programs.
"Anti-Terrorism Program of the Department of State," State Department, 1985. Obtained by the National Security Archive.
Peacekeeping Operations: These funds provide voluntary support for international peacekeeping activities (as opposed to the U.S. share of UN-assessed peacekeeping operations, which is financed elsewhere). PKO funds promote increased involvement of regional organizations in conflict resolution and help leverage support for multinational efforts where no formal cost sharing mechanism is available.
Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union: The Freedom Support Act (FSA) was passed in Congress on October 24, 1992 with the goal of providing the states of the former Soviet Union funds that support free market and democratic reforms through demilitarization, humanitarian and technical assistance. The bill particularly endorses American investment and trade through enterprise funds, small business programs and access to credits for purchases of U.S. food exports. The FSA also provides funding for nuclear nonproliferation programs and activities, as well as the dismantlement and destruction of biological, chemical and conventional weapons, and humanitarian aid, including health and human services programs. While funds allocated through this program are not used to purchase weapons or military training per se, they are used to enhance law enforcement and border security capabilities. These funds also free up money that the recipient government can then spend in other ways, including on defense.
For more information on these programs, see Chapter 1 of the Arms Trade Revealed
This seems to be changing a bit. Especially as more and more countries begin to realize they have been duped into accepting worthless paper fiat from a dysfunctional and corrupt U.S. political & financial system interested only in the creation of debt slavery around the world.
Fractional Reserve Banking Is the trap for you..
97% of ALL money is now digital.. It does not EXIST outside of cyber space!
I often call what we have in the United Staes a debt based ponzi scheme economy.. It seems everything about America and her economy depends upon debt creation..
Most Americans are participants in this horrific ponzi scheme designed to keep the majority of people poor, working and turning over all of the fiat they "earn", plus a lot of fiat that they do not have, to government and corporations..
This seemingly voluntary participation is commonly called "wage slavery"
The first articulate description of wage slavery was perhaps made by Simon Linguet in 1763
The slave was precious to his master because of the money he had cost him… They were worth at least as much as they could be sold for in the market… It is the impossibility of living by any other means that compels our farm labourers to till the soil whose fruits they will not eat and our masons to construct buildings in which they will not live… It is want that compels them to go down on their knees to the rich man in order to get from him permission to enrich him… what effective gain [has] the suppression of slavery brought [him ?] He is free, you say. Ah! That is his misfortune… These men… [have] the most terrible, the most imperious of masters, that is, need. … They must therefore find someone to hire them, or die of hunger. Is that to be free?
[More here]
And here for a bit more personal look at wage slavery.
It seems clear that most of the wars created by the United States involve one of two things.. A battle over resources, oil, gold and the like, and or the protection of the money game.. The protection of the American dollar's world reserve currency status.
We seem to see again and again those countries who dare refuse to accept American fiat as payment for resources soon find themselves being bombed..
Petro dollar and Iran war
Wow That Was Fast! Libyan Rebels Have Already Established A New Central Bank Of Libya
Petrodollar Theories of the [Iraq] War
Read about The Five [American] “Bank Wars”
We are told that central banks were created to control inflation.. Then why has the United States dollar LOST 96% of it's value to inflation since the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913?
FEDERAL RESERVE CENTRAL BANK !!! USA DEBT SLAVERY LIES GREED WARS !!! II
Everyone, around the world, seems to be waking up to the fact that everything economic seems to merely be a scam.. A scam to funnel fiat from the bottom to the top.. To the top 1% if you like..
Check out this list of the central banks of the world if you missed it..
Please see more on debt..
For the record, the actual rate of growth of the private US debt to GDP ratio was roughly 2.9% p.a. from 1945 till 2008. That means that the ratio doubled every 25 years, from 45% in 1945 to 90% in 1970, 180% in 1995, and if it had kept going, it would have been 360% in 2020.
Instead it fell over in 2008, and is now going backward at a rate of knots. Here’s an extrapolation of the trend that the WEF says is “nothing unsustainable about”, from the time period they should have started their analysis—not 2000 but 1945—and focusing on the key problem—private debt:
source --> Exponential Credit Petri Dish; Steve Keen Responds to "World Economic Forum Endorses Fraud" Post
Wal-Mart, disequilibria, Greenspan's Fraud and global economic dislocation
(Sept. 4, 2006)
Deleveraging and the Futility of 'Printing Money'
the money masters certainly seem to be firmly in control.. of everything..
Do we even have the ability to fight back at all???
Greg
Many foreign dictators & hostile states are merely whores for American military aid.. For decades American government, American politicians, have been able to BUY whatever cooperation they seek in the world around us..
In short we create advanced weapons systems and LOAN money (fiat) to foreign tyrants, at interest, who agree to kill the right people with said United States financed weaponry.
U.S. Foreign Military Assistance <-- source
Program Descriptions Program Reports Budget Requests Other Documents USAID Greenbook
Program Descriptions
Listed below are several U.S. programs that provide foreign states with military and related assistance, directly and indirectly supporting U.S. arms transfers.
Foreign Military Financing: Foreign Military Financing refers to congressionally appropriated grants given to foreign governments to finance the purchase of American-made weapons, services and training. Since 1950, the US government has provided over $91 billion in FMF to militaries around the world. The vast majority of these funds goes to Israel and Egypt to reward them for making a cold peace in 1979.
Economic Support Fund: Congress established the economic support fund (ESF) to promote economic and political stability in strategically important regions where the United States has special security interests. The funds are provided on a grant basis and are available for a variety of economic purposes, like infrastructure and development projects. Although not intended for military expenditure, these grants allow the recipient government to free up its own money for military programs.
International Military Education and Training: International Military Education and Training (IMET) grants are given to foreign governments to pay for professional education in military management and technical training on US weapons systems. Over 2,000 courses are offered, including some on human rights and civil-military relations. This program is said by its proponents to promote positive military-to-military contacts, thereby familiarizing foreign officers with "US values and democratic processes," though critics argue there is too much emphasis on military skills and not enough on human rights. The Expanded IMET program offered to certain states only focuses on the latter.
Counter-Narcotics Assistance: Through International Narcotics Control programs, the US government provides funds for military equipment and training to overseas police and armed forces to combat the production and trafficking of illegal drugs. These funds are generally dedicated to the export of firearms and the refurbishment of surveillance aircraft, transport planes and helicopters.Additional counter-narcotics training and equipment is provided by the Department of Defense, the Drug Enforcement Agency and other agencies. In recent years, human rights abuses by military and police units receiving this aid - especially in Colombia - have intensified criticism of the program.
Non-Proliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs: This category of funding provides resources in support of a variety of security-related foreign policy objectives. Funds go to nuclear non-proliferation programs, anti-terrorism aid, demining activities, and - a new item in FY 2001 - small arms destruction programs.
"Anti-Terrorism Program of the Department of State," State Department, 1985. Obtained by the National Security Archive.
Peacekeeping Operations: These funds provide voluntary support for international peacekeeping activities (as opposed to the U.S. share of UN-assessed peacekeeping operations, which is financed elsewhere). PKO funds promote increased involvement of regional organizations in conflict resolution and help leverage support for multinational efforts where no formal cost sharing mechanism is available.
Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union: The Freedom Support Act (FSA) was passed in Congress on October 24, 1992 with the goal of providing the states of the former Soviet Union funds that support free market and democratic reforms through demilitarization, humanitarian and technical assistance. The bill particularly endorses American investment and trade through enterprise funds, small business programs and access to credits for purchases of U.S. food exports. The FSA also provides funding for nuclear nonproliferation programs and activities, as well as the dismantlement and destruction of biological, chemical and conventional weapons, and humanitarian aid, including health and human services programs. While funds allocated through this program are not used to purchase weapons or military training per se, they are used to enhance law enforcement and border security capabilities. These funds also free up money that the recipient government can then spend in other ways, including on defense.
For more information on these programs, see Chapter 1 of the Arms Trade Revealed
This seems to be changing a bit. Especially as more and more countries begin to realize they have been duped into accepting worthless paper fiat from a dysfunctional and corrupt U.S. political & financial system interested only in the creation of debt slavery around the world.
Fractional Reserve Banking Is the trap for you..
97% of ALL money is now digital.. It does not EXIST outside of cyber space!
I often call what we have in the United Staes a debt based ponzi scheme economy.. It seems everything about America and her economy depends upon debt creation..
Most Americans are participants in this horrific ponzi scheme designed to keep the majority of people poor, working and turning over all of the fiat they "earn", plus a lot of fiat that they do not have, to government and corporations..
This seemingly voluntary participation is commonly called "wage slavery"
The first articulate description of wage slavery was perhaps made by Simon Linguet in 1763
The slave was precious to his master because of the money he had cost him… They were worth at least as much as they could be sold for in the market… It is the impossibility of living by any other means that compels our farm labourers to till the soil whose fruits they will not eat and our masons to construct buildings in which they will not live… It is want that compels them to go down on their knees to the rich man in order to get from him permission to enrich him… what effective gain [has] the suppression of slavery brought [him ?] He is free, you say. Ah! That is his misfortune… These men… [have] the most terrible, the most imperious of masters, that is, need. … They must therefore find someone to hire them, or die of hunger. Is that to be free?
[More here]
And here for a bit more personal look at wage slavery.
It seems clear that most of the wars created by the United States involve one of two things.. A battle over resources, oil, gold and the like, and or the protection of the money game.. The protection of the American dollar's world reserve currency status.
We seem to see again and again those countries who dare refuse to accept American fiat as payment for resources soon find themselves being bombed..
Petro dollar and Iran war
Wow That Was Fast! Libyan Rebels Have Already Established A New Central Bank Of Libya
Petrodollar Theories of the [Iraq] War
Read about The Five [American] “Bank Wars”
We are told that central banks were created to control inflation.. Then why has the United States dollar LOST 96% of it's value to inflation since the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913?
FEDERAL RESERVE CENTRAL BANK !!! USA DEBT SLAVERY LIES GREED WARS !!! II
Everyone, around the world, seems to be waking up to the fact that everything economic seems to merely be a scam.. A scam to funnel fiat from the bottom to the top.. To the top 1% if you like..
Check out this list of the central banks of the world if you missed it..
Please see more on debt..
For the record, the actual rate of growth of the private US debt to GDP ratio was roughly 2.9% p.a. from 1945 till 2008. That means that the ratio doubled every 25 years, from 45% in 1945 to 90% in 1970, 180% in 1995, and if it had kept going, it would have been 360% in 2020.
Instead it fell over in 2008, and is now going backward at a rate of knots. Here’s an extrapolation of the trend that the WEF says is “nothing unsustainable about”, from the time period they should have started their analysis—not 2000 but 1945—and focusing on the key problem—private debt:
source --> Exponential Credit Petri Dish; Steve Keen Responds to "World Economic Forum Endorses Fraud" Post
Wal-Mart, disequilibria, Greenspan's Fraud and global economic dislocation
(Sept. 4, 2006)
Deleveraging and the Futility of 'Printing Money'
the money masters certainly seem to be firmly in control.. of everything..
Do we even have the ability to fight back at all???
Greg
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Central Banks, BIS and Goldman Sachs Coercion $GS
---
Sartre
Infowars.com
September 5, 2011
Did you ever wonder why countries allow private central banks to issue their money? Somehow, missing in the self-governing status of governments is the courage to deny the seduction or the threats of the global banking cabal, over the control of a nation’s currency. How did this obvious usurpation of independence become an unquestioned acceptance by the very governments who proclaim to be sovereign nations? The answer reveals that the right of autonomous government is now dependent upon the approval of the banking cartel. The myth that a historic country can exert their populist will and financial self-determination, when it conflicts or opposes the interest and objectives of the moneychangers, is outright fantasy.
Continue reading Central Banks, BIS and Goldman Sachs Coercion on infowars
Sartre
Infowars.com
September 5, 2011
Did you ever wonder why countries allow private central banks to issue their money? Somehow, missing in the self-governing status of governments is the courage to deny the seduction or the threats of the global banking cabal, over the control of a nation’s currency. How did this obvious usurpation of independence become an unquestioned acceptance by the very governments who proclaim to be sovereign nations? The answer reveals that the right of autonomous government is now dependent upon the approval of the banking cartel. The myth that a historic country can exert their populist will and financial self-determination, when it conflicts or opposes the interest and objectives of the moneychangers, is outright fantasy.
Continue reading Central Banks, BIS and Goldman Sachs Coercion on infowars
Check out the #bank for Central Bankers #BIS
---
BIS is what they call the Bank for International Settlements. It is located in Basel, Switzerland. Into it pours the cream from the centralized world money whirlpool -- quadrillions of dollars skimmed from the people of the world by the world's Rothschild-owned central banks. Who owns the world? Evidently the Rothschilds do. Picture the nightly "international settlements" ... money coming in from all corners and piling as high as the sky. All those interest payments on all those economic-hit-men-made impossible poor-country loans, all those credit card penalties and skyrocketing late fees, all those foreclosure clean-ups, all those income taxes ... to say nothing of all of that general cleaning out of our piggybanks by non-stop inflating prices for every aspect of our existence. The Big Piggybank it all goes into at the end of the proverbial day is the BIS.
"Central" banks are actually privately owned banks foreign to the country they are in that have managed to strong-arm their way into most nations of the world over the past 300 or so years. Central banking was the brainchild of Mayer Amschel Bauer, born in Germany in 1744, who changed his name to "Rothschild" (red shield) to honor the occultic red hexagram above his father's money-lending enterprise. The first central bank in America was created by the Rothschild family and Alexander Hamilton (and we thought Aaron Burr was the bad guy!) in 1791, only to result in huge nationwide inflation and government debt. America's second central bank was born in 1816, again with disastrous effects on the people, who elected Andrew Jackson to put an end to it. Jackson achieved this in 1836, and two years later actually paid off the national debt. It would be many decades (the next century) before the Rothschild cartel succeeded at forcing in a third central bank, which is with us today -- the Federal Reserve (born in 1913).
The Federal Reserve is not owned by the people of America. American money, marked "Federal Reserve Note," is rife with occultic symbols and meanings unknown to most Americans. The Federal Reserve prints American currency, lends it to the American government and charges interest, which is paid for by Americans giving up large portions of their earnings in the form of "income tax." But Americans are not alone ...
Here's a list of the Rothschild-owned central banks of the world:
Afghanistan: Bank of Afghanistan
Albania: Bank of Albania
Algeria: Bank of Algeria
Argentina: Central Bank of Argentina"
Armenia: Central Bank of Armenia
Aruba: Central Bank of Aruba
Australia: Reserve Bank of Australia
Austria: Austrian National Bank
Azerbaijan: Central Bank of Azerbaijan Republic
Bahamas: Central Bank of The Bahamas
Bahrain: Central Bank of Bahrain
Bangladesh: Bangladesh Bank
Barbados: Central Bank of Barbados
Belarus: National Bank of the Republic of Belarus
Belgium: National Bank of Belgium
Belize: Central Bank of Belize
Benin: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Bermuda: Bermuda Monetary Authority
Bhutan: Royal Monetary Authority of Bhutan
Bolivia: Central Bank of Bolivia
Bosnia: Central Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana: Bank of Botswana
Brazil: Central Bank of Brazil
Bulgaria: Bulgarian National Bank
Burkina Faso: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Burundi: Bank of the Republic of Burundi
Cambodia: National Bank of Cambodia
Cameroon: Bank of Central African States
Canada: Bank of Canada - Banque du Canada
Cayman Islands: Cayman Islands Monetary Authority
Central African Republic: Bank of Central African States
Chad: Bank of Central African States
Chile: Central Bank of Chile
China: The People’s Bank of China
Colombia: Bank of the Republic
Comoros: Central Bank of Comoros
Congo: Bank of Central African States
Costa Rica: Central Bank of Costa Rica
Côte d’Ivoire: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Croatia: Croatian National Bank
Cuba: Central Bank of Cuba
Cyprus: Central Bank of Cyprus
Czech Republic: Czech National Bank
Denmark: National Bank of Denmark
Dominican Republic: Central Bank of the Dominican Republic
East Caribbean area: Eastern Caribbean Central Bank
Ecuador: Central Bank of Ecuador
Egypt: Central Bank of Egypt
El Salvador: Central Reserve Bank of El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea: Bank of Central African States
Estonia: Bank of Estonia
Ethiopia: National Bank of Ethiopia
European Union: European Central Bank
Fiji: Reserve Bank of Fiji
Finland: Bank of Finland
France: Bank of France
Gabon: Bank of Central African States
The Gambia: Central Bank of The Gambia
Georgia: National Bank of Georgia
Germany: Deutsche Bundesbank
Ghana: Bank of Ghana
Greece: Bank of Greece
Guatemala: Bank of Guatemala
Guinea Bissau: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Guyana: Bank of Guyana
Haiti: Central Bank of Haiti
Honduras: Central Bank of Honduras
Hong Kong: Hong Kong Monetary Authority
Hungary: Magyar Nemzeti Bank
Iceland: Central Bank of Iceland
India: Reserve Bank of India
Indonesia: Bank Indonesia
Iran: The Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Iraq: Central Bank of Iraq
Ireland: Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland
Israel: Bank of Israel
Italy: Bank of Italy
Jamaica: Bank of Jamaica
Japan: Bank of Japan
Jordan: Central Bank of Jordan
Kazakhstan: National Bank of Kazakhstan
Kenya: Central Bank of Kenya
Korea: Bank of Korea
Kuwait: Central Bank of Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan: National Bank of the Kyrgyz Republic
Latvia: Bank of Latvia
Lebanon: Central Bank of Lebanon
Lesotho: Central Bank of Lesotho
Libya: Central Bank of Libya
Lithuania: Bank of Lithuania
Luxembourg: Central Bank of Luxembourg
Macao: Monetary Authority of Macao
Macedonia: National Bank of the Republic of Macedonia
Madagascar: Central Bank of Madagascar
Malawi: Reserve Bank of Malawi
Malaysia: Central Bank of Malaysia
Mali: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Malta: Central Bank of Malta
Mauritius: Bank of Mauritius
Mexico: Bank of Mexico
Moldova: National Bank of Moldova
Mongolia: Bank of Mongolia
Montenegro: Central Bank of Montenegro
Morocco: Bank of Morocco
Mozambique: Bank of Mozambique
Namibia: Bank of Namibia
Nepal: Central Bank of Nepal
Netherlands: Netherlands Bank
Netherlands Antilles: Bank of the Netherlands Antilles
New Zealand: Reserve Bank of New Zealand
Nicaragua: Central Bank of Nicaragua
Niger: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Nigeria: Central Bank of Nigeria
Norway: Central Bank of Norway
Oman: Central Bank of Oman
Pakistan: State Bank of Pakistan
Papua New Guinea: Bank of Papua New Guinea
Paraguay: Central Bank of Paraguay
Peru: Central Reserve Bank of Peru
Philippines: Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
Poland: National Bank of Poland
Portugal: Bank of Portugal
Qatar: Qatar Central Bank
Romania: National Bank of Romania
Russia: Central Bank of Russia
Rwanda: National Bank of Rwanda
San Marino: Central Bank of the Republic of San Marino
Samoa: Central Bank of Samoa
Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency
Senegal: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Serbia: National Bank of Serbia
Seychelles: Central Bank of Seychelles
Sierra Leone: Bank of Sierra Leone
Singapore: Monetary Authority of Singapore
Slovakia: National Bank of Slovakia
Slovenia: Bank of Slovenia
Solomon Islands: Central Bank of Solomon Islands
South Africa: South African Reserve Bank
Spain: Bank of Spain
Sri Lanka: Central Bank of Sri Lanka
Sudan: Bank of Sudan
Surinam: Central Bank of Suriname
Swaziland: The Central Bank of Swaziland
Sweden: Sveriges Riksbank
Switzerland: Swiss National Bank
Tajikistan: National Bank of Tajikistan
Tanzania: Bank of Tanzania
Thailand: Bank of Thailand
Togo: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Tonga: National Reserve Bank of Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago: Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia: Central Bank of Tunisia
Turkey: Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey
Uganda: Bank of Uganda
Ukraine: National Bank of Ukraine
United Arab Emirates: Central Bank of United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom: Bank of England
United States: The Dirty Nasty Stinky Fed, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Uruguay: Central Bank of Uruguay
Vanuatu: Reserve Bank of Vanuatu
Venezuela: Central Bank of Venezuela
Vietnam: The State Bank of Vietnam
Yemen: Central Bank of Yemen
Zambia: Bank of Zambia
Zimbabwe: Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe
Want more? Click here for full article by William Garner ... book coming too
BIS is what they call the Bank for International Settlements. It is located in Basel, Switzerland. Into it pours the cream from the centralized world money whirlpool -- quadrillions of dollars skimmed from the people of the world by the world's Rothschild-owned central banks. Who owns the world? Evidently the Rothschilds do. Picture the nightly "international settlements" ... money coming in from all corners and piling as high as the sky. All those interest payments on all those economic-hit-men-made impossible poor-country loans, all those credit card penalties and skyrocketing late fees, all those foreclosure clean-ups, all those income taxes ... to say nothing of all of that general cleaning out of our piggybanks by non-stop inflating prices for every aspect of our existence. The Big Piggybank it all goes into at the end of the proverbial day is the BIS.
"Central" banks are actually privately owned banks foreign to the country they are in that have managed to strong-arm their way into most nations of the world over the past 300 or so years. Central banking was the brainchild of Mayer Amschel Bauer, born in Germany in 1744, who changed his name to "Rothschild" (red shield) to honor the occultic red hexagram above his father's money-lending enterprise. The first central bank in America was created by the Rothschild family and Alexander Hamilton (and we thought Aaron Burr was the bad guy!) in 1791, only to result in huge nationwide inflation and government debt. America's second central bank was born in 1816, again with disastrous effects on the people, who elected Andrew Jackson to put an end to it. Jackson achieved this in 1836, and two years later actually paid off the national debt. It would be many decades (the next century) before the Rothschild cartel succeeded at forcing in a third central bank, which is with us today -- the Federal Reserve (born in 1913).
The Federal Reserve is not owned by the people of America. American money, marked "Federal Reserve Note," is rife with occultic symbols and meanings unknown to most Americans. The Federal Reserve prints American currency, lends it to the American government and charges interest, which is paid for by Americans giving up large portions of their earnings in the form of "income tax." But Americans are not alone ...
Here's a list of the Rothschild-owned central banks of the world:
Afghanistan: Bank of Afghanistan
Albania: Bank of Albania
Algeria: Bank of Algeria
Argentina: Central Bank of Argentina"
Armenia: Central Bank of Armenia
Aruba: Central Bank of Aruba
Australia: Reserve Bank of Australia
Austria: Austrian National Bank
Azerbaijan: Central Bank of Azerbaijan Republic
Bahamas: Central Bank of The Bahamas
Bahrain: Central Bank of Bahrain
Bangladesh: Bangladesh Bank
Barbados: Central Bank of Barbados
Belarus: National Bank of the Republic of Belarus
Belgium: National Bank of Belgium
Belize: Central Bank of Belize
Benin: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Bermuda: Bermuda Monetary Authority
Bhutan: Royal Monetary Authority of Bhutan
Bolivia: Central Bank of Bolivia
Bosnia: Central Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana: Bank of Botswana
Brazil: Central Bank of Brazil
Bulgaria: Bulgarian National Bank
Burkina Faso: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Burundi: Bank of the Republic of Burundi
Cambodia: National Bank of Cambodia
Cameroon: Bank of Central African States
Canada: Bank of Canada - Banque du Canada
Cayman Islands: Cayman Islands Monetary Authority
Central African Republic: Bank of Central African States
Chad: Bank of Central African States
Chile: Central Bank of Chile
China: The People’s Bank of China
Colombia: Bank of the Republic
Comoros: Central Bank of Comoros
Congo: Bank of Central African States
Costa Rica: Central Bank of Costa Rica
Côte d’Ivoire: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Croatia: Croatian National Bank
Cuba: Central Bank of Cuba
Cyprus: Central Bank of Cyprus
Czech Republic: Czech National Bank
Denmark: National Bank of Denmark
Dominican Republic: Central Bank of the Dominican Republic
East Caribbean area: Eastern Caribbean Central Bank
Ecuador: Central Bank of Ecuador
Egypt: Central Bank of Egypt
El Salvador: Central Reserve Bank of El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea: Bank of Central African States
Estonia: Bank of Estonia
Ethiopia: National Bank of Ethiopia
European Union: European Central Bank
Fiji: Reserve Bank of Fiji
Finland: Bank of Finland
France: Bank of France
Gabon: Bank of Central African States
The Gambia: Central Bank of The Gambia
Georgia: National Bank of Georgia
Germany: Deutsche Bundesbank
Ghana: Bank of Ghana
Greece: Bank of Greece
Guatemala: Bank of Guatemala
Guinea Bissau: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Guyana: Bank of Guyana
Haiti: Central Bank of Haiti
Honduras: Central Bank of Honduras
Hong Kong: Hong Kong Monetary Authority
Hungary: Magyar Nemzeti Bank
Iceland: Central Bank of Iceland
India: Reserve Bank of India
Indonesia: Bank Indonesia
Iran: The Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Iraq: Central Bank of Iraq
Ireland: Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland
Israel: Bank of Israel
Italy: Bank of Italy
Jamaica: Bank of Jamaica
Japan: Bank of Japan
Jordan: Central Bank of Jordan
Kazakhstan: National Bank of Kazakhstan
Kenya: Central Bank of Kenya
Korea: Bank of Korea
Kuwait: Central Bank of Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan: National Bank of the Kyrgyz Republic
Latvia: Bank of Latvia
Lebanon: Central Bank of Lebanon
Lesotho: Central Bank of Lesotho
Libya: Central Bank of Libya
Lithuania: Bank of Lithuania
Luxembourg: Central Bank of Luxembourg
Macao: Monetary Authority of Macao
Macedonia: National Bank of the Republic of Macedonia
Madagascar: Central Bank of Madagascar
Malawi: Reserve Bank of Malawi
Malaysia: Central Bank of Malaysia
Mali: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Malta: Central Bank of Malta
Mauritius: Bank of Mauritius
Mexico: Bank of Mexico
Moldova: National Bank of Moldova
Mongolia: Bank of Mongolia
Montenegro: Central Bank of Montenegro
Morocco: Bank of Morocco
Mozambique: Bank of Mozambique
Namibia: Bank of Namibia
Nepal: Central Bank of Nepal
Netherlands: Netherlands Bank
Netherlands Antilles: Bank of the Netherlands Antilles
New Zealand: Reserve Bank of New Zealand
Nicaragua: Central Bank of Nicaragua
Niger: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Nigeria: Central Bank of Nigeria
Norway: Central Bank of Norway
Oman: Central Bank of Oman
Pakistan: State Bank of Pakistan
Papua New Guinea: Bank of Papua New Guinea
Paraguay: Central Bank of Paraguay
Peru: Central Reserve Bank of Peru
Philippines: Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
Poland: National Bank of Poland
Portugal: Bank of Portugal
Qatar: Qatar Central Bank
Romania: National Bank of Romania
Russia: Central Bank of Russia
Rwanda: National Bank of Rwanda
San Marino: Central Bank of the Republic of San Marino
Samoa: Central Bank of Samoa
Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency
Senegal: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Serbia: National Bank of Serbia
Seychelles: Central Bank of Seychelles
Sierra Leone: Bank of Sierra Leone
Singapore: Monetary Authority of Singapore
Slovakia: National Bank of Slovakia
Slovenia: Bank of Slovenia
Solomon Islands: Central Bank of Solomon Islands
South Africa: South African Reserve Bank
Spain: Bank of Spain
Sri Lanka: Central Bank of Sri Lanka
Sudan: Bank of Sudan
Surinam: Central Bank of Suriname
Swaziland: The Central Bank of Swaziland
Sweden: Sveriges Riksbank
Switzerland: Swiss National Bank
Tajikistan: National Bank of Tajikistan
Tanzania: Bank of Tanzania
Thailand: Bank of Thailand
Togo: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Tonga: National Reserve Bank of Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago: Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia: Central Bank of Tunisia
Turkey: Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey
Uganda: Bank of Uganda
Ukraine: National Bank of Ukraine
United Arab Emirates: Central Bank of United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom: Bank of England
United States: The Dirty Nasty Stinky Fed, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Uruguay: Central Bank of Uruguay
Vanuatu: Reserve Bank of Vanuatu
Venezuela: Central Bank of Venezuela
Vietnam: The State Bank of Vietnam
Yemen: Central Bank of Yemen
Zambia: Bank of Zambia
Zimbabwe: Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe
Want more? Click here for full article by William Garner ... book coming too
From #Liberty to Martial Law - It's easier than you think
---
I could string this "stuff", these "warnings" together all day everyday.. It seems obvious to me that our future is grim indeed..
The "time" for warnings is running short.. Listen to what, virtually, everyone is trying to tell you..
---
---
---
Senate Votes To Let Military Detain Americans Indefinitely, White House Threatens Veto
First Posted: 11/29/11 06:35 PM ET Updated: 11/30/11 12:05 AM ET | Huffington Post
WASHINGTON -- The Senate voted Tuesday to keep a controversial provision to let the military detain terrorism suspects on U.S. soil and hold them indefinitely without trial -- prompting White House officials to reissue a veto threat.
The measure, part of the massive National Defense Authorization Act, was also opposed by civil libertarians on the left and right. But 16 Democrats and an independent joined with Republicans to defeat an amendment by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) that would have killed the provision, voting it down with 61 against, and 37 for it.
"I'm very, very, concerned about having U.S. citizens sent to Guantanamo Bay for indefinite detention," said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the Senate's most conservative members.
Paul's top complaint is that a terrorism suspect would get just one hearing where the military could assert that the person is a suspected terrorist -- and then they could be locked up for life, without ever formally being charged. The only safety valve is a waiver from the secretary of defense.
"It's not enough just to be alleged to be a terrorist," Paul said, echoing the views of the American Civil Liberties Union. "That's part of what due process is -- deciding, are you a terrorist? I think it's important that we not allow U.S. citizens to be taken."
Democrats who were also concerned about liberties compared the military policing of Americans to the detention of Americans in internment camps during World War II.
"Congress is essentially authorizing the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens, without charge," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who offered another amendment -- which has not yet gotten a vote -- that she said would correct the problem. "We are not a nation that locks up its citizens without charge."
Backers of military detention of Americans -- a measure crafted by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) -- came out swinging against Udall's amendment on the Senate floor earlier Tuesday.
"The enemy is all over the world. Here at home. And when people take up arms against the United States and [are] captured within the United States, why should we not be able to use our military and intelligence community to question that person as to what they know about enemy activity?" Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said.
"They should not be read their Miranda Rights. They should not be given a lawyer," Graham said. "They should be held humanely in military custody and interrogated about why they joined al Qaeda and what they were going to do to all of us."
In criticizing the measure, White House officials said that it would cause confusion and interfere with a counterterrorism effort that has been remarkably successful since Sept. 11, 2001 -- across two administrations.
"It is likely that implementing such procedures would inject significant confusion into counterterrorism operations," the White House argued in a Nov. 17 statement.
Further, it contended:
This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President's authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals. Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets. We have spent ten years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals; Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult.
A White House official said the administration stands by the veto threat. "We take this very, very seriously," the official said.
Both FBI Director Robert Mueller and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper backed up the White House with letters sent to congressional leaders. Clapper echoed the charge that the measure creates uncertainty and added that it could prevent intelligence operatives from getting critical information from suspects.
And although the measure allows the secretary of defense to waive it, both Mueller and Clapper said that could prove unworkable in the real world.
Mueller added that it could even stop the FBI from investigating individuals who fall under the definitions of suspected terrorist in the measure.
The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act would authorize defense spending on military personnel, weapons and war. The first draft of the bill won support from both parties in Congress in October, passing out of the Senate Armed Services Committee with just Udall dissenting. A similar House bill allocating $690 billion for the Pentagon passed in May, without the controversial measure. It could be changed when the differing versions are merged, if Congress desires.
The detention provision whipped up a furor in both parties, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) having already text delayed the vote over it.
The final vote showed bizarre fractures among Democrats, erasing the usual barriers between conservatives and liberals. The 16 who voted for the harsh detainee rules were Sens. Bob Casey (Pa.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Daniel Inouye (Hawaii), Herb Kohl (Wis.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Joe Manchin (W. Va.), Clair McCaskill (Mo.), Robert Menendez (N.J.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.). National defense hawk and independent Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) also voted in favor of the tougher language.
"It's one of those things where ... it's bipartisan on both sides. Levin's not on the same page as the White House. We've got our own internal differences; Paul and Kirk don't agree with Graham," said a senior GOP aide just before the vote. "Everybody's trying to do the right thing. There's just a difference of opinion."
Even though Paul was joined only by Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) on his side of the aisle, the issue was contentious at the Republicans' weekly caucus lunch.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) emerged from the meeting -- where former Vice President Dick Cheney was in attendance -- saying his colleagues had "a spirited discussion" about Udall's amendment, and predicted nearly all Republicans would oppose the amendment, as they did.
Update 10:30 p.m.
Sen. Menendez later sought, and was granted, unanimous consent from the Senate to change his vote. He is now recorded as supporting the Udall amendment, with the final tally changed to 38 to 60.
Additional reporting by Hayley Miller.
---
Monday, July 25, 2011 Activist Post
Pentagon To Deploy 20,000 Troops In CONUS For Civil Unrest – Possible Threats To Populace
Intel Hub Note: Please get this information out to everyone. It is better to be safe than sorry. — Shepard
image source
Shepard Ambellas and Alex Thomas
The Intel Hub
In 2008 The Pentagon announced plans to deploy a 20,000 strong internal troop force inside the continental United States (CONUS) that was set to be trained by 2011, thus dovetailing into the current troop and equipment movements around the country reported by truckers, as well as many more troop sightings by everyday citizens.
Interestingly enough, this plan directly correlates with a 2009, Army funded, Rand Corporation study that called for an internal United States police force to combat civil unrest.
This study asks several questions. First, is a Stability Police Force (SPF) necessary? An SPF is a high-end police force that engages in a range of tasks such as crowd and riot control, special weapons and tactics (SWAT), and investigations of organized criminal groups. In its ability to operate in stability operations, it is similar to such European forces as the Italian Carabinieri and French Gendarmerie.
Its focus on high endtasks makes it fundamentally different from UN or other civilian police, who deal with more routine law and order functions. It is also different from most military forces, which are generally not trained and experienced to conduct policing tasks in a civilian environment.
Second, if an SPF is necessary, what should it look like? This includes considering such issues as: its objectives, tasks, and size; its speed of deployment; its institutional capabilities; where it should be headquartered in the U.S. government and how it should be staffed (standing force, reserve force, and hybrid force); and its cost.
It is openly admitted that the internal force will be used to quell civil unrest due to massive large-scale terror attacks and/or economic collapse.
Will the powers-that-be stage a repeat of the martial law threats to Congress that they presented back in 2008 to get the bailouts passed to get the debt ceiling raised now?
Rep. Brad Sherman laid out exactly took place during the bailouts in 2008:
Many people have voiced fears that this will turn our country into a total militarized police state, wondering what will happen in the future once the sheeple are conditioned to the military roaming the streets in America.
Others have speculated that this announcement directly coincides with all of the pre-positioning of troops, equipment, and (NOTAM) No-Fly Zones throughout The United States over the last few months.
Does any of this correlate with the debt ceiling (economy), earth changes, or nuclear threats from reactors in danger within the US?
---
Ron Paul
---
---
I know.. the pieces fit..
I could string this "stuff", these "warnings" together all day everyday.. It seems obvious to me that our future is grim indeed..
The "time" for warnings is running short.. Listen to what, virtually, everyone is trying to tell you..
---
---
---
Senate Votes To Let Military Detain Americans Indefinitely, White House Threatens Veto
First Posted: 11/29/11 06:35 PM ET Updated: 11/30/11 12:05 AM ET | Huffington Post
WASHINGTON -- The Senate voted Tuesday to keep a controversial provision to let the military detain terrorism suspects on U.S. soil and hold them indefinitely without trial -- prompting White House officials to reissue a veto threat.
The measure, part of the massive National Defense Authorization Act, was also opposed by civil libertarians on the left and right. But 16 Democrats and an independent joined with Republicans to defeat an amendment by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) that would have killed the provision, voting it down with 61 against, and 37 for it.
"I'm very, very, concerned about having U.S. citizens sent to Guantanamo Bay for indefinite detention," said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the Senate's most conservative members.
Paul's top complaint is that a terrorism suspect would get just one hearing where the military could assert that the person is a suspected terrorist -- and then they could be locked up for life, without ever formally being charged. The only safety valve is a waiver from the secretary of defense.
"It's not enough just to be alleged to be a terrorist," Paul said, echoing the views of the American Civil Liberties Union. "That's part of what due process is -- deciding, are you a terrorist? I think it's important that we not allow U.S. citizens to be taken."
Democrats who were also concerned about liberties compared the military policing of Americans to the detention of Americans in internment camps during World War II.
"Congress is essentially authorizing the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens, without charge," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who offered another amendment -- which has not yet gotten a vote -- that she said would correct the problem. "We are not a nation that locks up its citizens without charge."
Backers of military detention of Americans -- a measure crafted by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) -- came out swinging against Udall's amendment on the Senate floor earlier Tuesday.
"The enemy is all over the world. Here at home. And when people take up arms against the United States and [are] captured within the United States, why should we not be able to use our military and intelligence community to question that person as to what they know about enemy activity?" Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said.
"They should not be read their Miranda Rights. They should not be given a lawyer," Graham said. "They should be held humanely in military custody and interrogated about why they joined al Qaeda and what they were going to do to all of us."
In criticizing the measure, White House officials said that it would cause confusion and interfere with a counterterrorism effort that has been remarkably successful since Sept. 11, 2001 -- across two administrations.
"It is likely that implementing such procedures would inject significant confusion into counterterrorism operations," the White House argued in a Nov. 17 statement.
Further, it contended:
This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President's authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals. Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets. We have spent ten years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals; Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult.
A White House official said the administration stands by the veto threat. "We take this very, very seriously," the official said.
Both FBI Director Robert Mueller and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper backed up the White House with letters sent to congressional leaders. Clapper echoed the charge that the measure creates uncertainty and added that it could prevent intelligence operatives from getting critical information from suspects.
And although the measure allows the secretary of defense to waive it, both Mueller and Clapper said that could prove unworkable in the real world.
Mueller added that it could even stop the FBI from investigating individuals who fall under the definitions of suspected terrorist in the measure.
The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act would authorize defense spending on military personnel, weapons and war. The first draft of the bill won support from both parties in Congress in October, passing out of the Senate Armed Services Committee with just Udall dissenting. A similar House bill allocating $690 billion for the Pentagon passed in May, without the controversial measure. It could be changed when the differing versions are merged, if Congress desires.
The detention provision whipped up a furor in both parties, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) having already text delayed the vote over it.
The final vote showed bizarre fractures among Democrats, erasing the usual barriers between conservatives and liberals. The 16 who voted for the harsh detainee rules were Sens. Bob Casey (Pa.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Daniel Inouye (Hawaii), Herb Kohl (Wis.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Joe Manchin (W. Va.), Clair McCaskill (Mo.), Robert Menendez (N.J.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.). National defense hawk and independent Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) also voted in favor of the tougher language.
"It's one of those things where ... it's bipartisan on both sides. Levin's not on the same page as the White House. We've got our own internal differences; Paul and Kirk don't agree with Graham," said a senior GOP aide just before the vote. "Everybody's trying to do the right thing. There's just a difference of opinion."
Even though Paul was joined only by Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) on his side of the aisle, the issue was contentious at the Republicans' weekly caucus lunch.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) emerged from the meeting -- where former Vice President Dick Cheney was in attendance -- saying his colleagues had "a spirited discussion" about Udall's amendment, and predicted nearly all Republicans would oppose the amendment, as they did.
Update 10:30 p.m.
Sen. Menendez later sought, and was granted, unanimous consent from the Senate to change his vote. He is now recorded as supporting the Udall amendment, with the final tally changed to 38 to 60.
Additional reporting by Hayley Miller.
---
Monday, July 25, 2011 Activist Post
Pentagon To Deploy 20,000 Troops In CONUS For Civil Unrest – Possible Threats To Populace
Intel Hub Note: Please get this information out to everyone. It is better to be safe than sorry. — Shepard
image source
Shepard Ambellas and Alex Thomas
The Intel Hub
In 2008 The Pentagon announced plans to deploy a 20,000 strong internal troop force inside the continental United States (CONUS) that was set to be trained by 2011, thus dovetailing into the current troop and equipment movements around the country reported by truckers, as well as many more troop sightings by everyday citizens.
Interestingly enough, this plan directly correlates with a 2009, Army funded, Rand Corporation study that called for an internal United States police force to combat civil unrest.
This study asks several questions. First, is a Stability Police Force (SPF) necessary? An SPF is a high-end police force that engages in a range of tasks such as crowd and riot control, special weapons and tactics (SWAT), and investigations of organized criminal groups. In its ability to operate in stability operations, it is similar to such European forces as the Italian Carabinieri and French Gendarmerie.
Its focus on high endtasks makes it fundamentally different from UN or other civilian police, who deal with more routine law and order functions. It is also different from most military forces, which are generally not trained and experienced to conduct policing tasks in a civilian environment.
Second, if an SPF is necessary, what should it look like? This includes considering such issues as: its objectives, tasks, and size; its speed of deployment; its institutional capabilities; where it should be headquartered in the U.S. government and how it should be staffed (standing force, reserve force, and hybrid force); and its cost.
It is openly admitted that the internal force will be used to quell civil unrest due to massive large-scale terror attacks and/or economic collapse.
Will the powers-that-be stage a repeat of the martial law threats to Congress that they presented back in 2008 to get the bailouts passed to get the debt ceiling raised now?
Rep. Brad Sherman laid out exactly took place during the bailouts in 2008:
Many people have voiced fears that this will turn our country into a total militarized police state, wondering what will happen in the future once the sheeple are conditioned to the military roaming the streets in America.
Others have speculated that this announcement directly coincides with all of the pre-positioning of troops, equipment, and (NOTAM) No-Fly Zones throughout The United States over the last few months.
Does any of this correlate with the debt ceiling (economy), earth changes, or nuclear threats from reactors in danger within the US?
---
Ron Paul
---
---
I know.. the pieces fit..
Monday, December 12, 2011
Friday, December 9, 2011
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Loopholes
---
Did you know that, as a business owner, you can take a small wage while also taking rather large dividends out of the business?
And do you know why so many small business owners do this?
The personal income tax they pay on money withdrawn from the business as dividends is a lower rate than they would have to pay on business profits.
So it's a simple way to convert business profits into business liabilities while paying a lower tax rate on the money..
A dividend is just money an owner takes out of the business it is not subject to payroll taxes. This is considered a business liability.
Dividends reduce taxable business profits.
It's all 100% perfectly legal but it sure helps demonstrate how screwed up our tax laws are.
I'm sure a majority of small business' do it.
It only makes sense to do it!
If you own a business and do not do this I would ask why not?
Do you have an accountant?
If not I might suggest you get one ;)
Greg
Did you know that, as a business owner, you can take a small wage while also taking rather large dividends out of the business?
And do you know why so many small business owners do this?
The personal income tax they pay on money withdrawn from the business as dividends is a lower rate than they would have to pay on business profits.
So it's a simple way to convert business profits into business liabilities while paying a lower tax rate on the money..
A dividend is just money an owner takes out of the business it is not subject to payroll taxes. This is considered a business liability.
Dividends reduce taxable business profits.
It's all 100% perfectly legal but it sure helps demonstrate how screwed up our tax laws are.
I'm sure a majority of small business' do it.
It only makes sense to do it!
If you own a business and do not do this I would ask why not?
Do you have an accountant?
If not I might suggest you get one ;)
Greg
Kansan's plan to arrest #Obama goes nowhere
---
Hey! At least they didn't send in a drone equipped with hellfire missiles to assassinate the guy!
LMAO
Greg
---
Dec. 7, 2011 4:13 PM ET
SALINA, Kan. (AP) — A Kansas man said officials should have helped him arrest President Barack Obama instead of seizing the handcuffs he planned to use to restrain the commander-in-chief.
Neil Jednoralski, 65, of Salina, claims that President Obama has British and Indonesian citizenship and is committing fraud by impersonating a person eligible to be president. Obama has repeatedly refuted such claims.
The Salina Journal reports (http://bit.ly/vkbKKP) that Jednoralski had announced his plan to arrest the president to the Kansas Highway Patrol and to Attorney General Derek Schmidt, whom he hoped would prosecute the president.
Instead of providing help, Schmidt's office confirms it informed the Secret Service. Jednoralski received a visit from a Secret Service agent and law enforcement officials at his home Monday evening in advance of Obama's speech Tuesday in Osawatomie, about 150 miles away. Jednoralski, a business owner, self-proclaimed tea party member and former candidate for state representative, was warned that he would be arrested for trespassing if he showed up for the speech.
Jednoralski said officials confiscated a warrant he created for the arrest of Obama. He said they also took a pair of handcuffs he bought specifically to arrest Obama, along with four guns. Jednoralski remained in Salina during the speech. Sheriff Glen Kochanowski said Jednoralski retrieved the items from the sheriff's office Tuesday afternoon.
Ed Donovan, a spokesman for the Secret Service, declined to discuss the specifics of the Jednoralski case but said each situation is handled individually.
"If we discover someone has made inappropriate comments or has an unusual direction of interest in someone we protect, we have a right and an obligation to determine what their intention is," Donovan said.
Jednoralski said he has planned for a year to arrest Obama under a Kansas law that allows a person to make an arrest.
"The law says if the person has probable cause to believe a person is guilty of a felony," Jednoralski said. "'Cause to believe' is pretty wide."
He wanted to bring Obama to Topeka for the courts to decide if he was eligible to be president.
Jednoralski first posted his intentions online in 2010. Until Monday's visit by the Secret Service, he publicly posted on his Facebook page that he planned to carry out the arrest in Osawatomie.
"I had no thought of endangering the president," said Jednoralski, who believes the Secret Service violated his rights by taking his guns. "I just wanted the courts to decide if he is eligible to be president."
___
Information from: The Salina Journal, http://www.salina.com
Hey! At least they didn't send in a drone equipped with hellfire missiles to assassinate the guy!
LMAO
Greg
---
Dec. 7, 2011 4:13 PM ET
SALINA, Kan. (AP) — A Kansas man said officials should have helped him arrest President Barack Obama instead of seizing the handcuffs he planned to use to restrain the commander-in-chief.
Neil Jednoralski, 65, of Salina, claims that President Obama has British and Indonesian citizenship and is committing fraud by impersonating a person eligible to be president. Obama has repeatedly refuted such claims.
The Salina Journal reports (http://bit.ly/vkbKKP) that Jednoralski had announced his plan to arrest the president to the Kansas Highway Patrol and to Attorney General Derek Schmidt, whom he hoped would prosecute the president.
Instead of providing help, Schmidt's office confirms it informed the Secret Service. Jednoralski received a visit from a Secret Service agent and law enforcement officials at his home Monday evening in advance of Obama's speech Tuesday in Osawatomie, about 150 miles away. Jednoralski, a business owner, self-proclaimed tea party member and former candidate for state representative, was warned that he would be arrested for trespassing if he showed up for the speech.
Jednoralski said officials confiscated a warrant he created for the arrest of Obama. He said they also took a pair of handcuffs he bought specifically to arrest Obama, along with four guns. Jednoralski remained in Salina during the speech. Sheriff Glen Kochanowski said Jednoralski retrieved the items from the sheriff's office Tuesday afternoon.
Ed Donovan, a spokesman for the Secret Service, declined to discuss the specifics of the Jednoralski case but said each situation is handled individually.
"If we discover someone has made inappropriate comments or has an unusual direction of interest in someone we protect, we have a right and an obligation to determine what their intention is," Donovan said.
Jednoralski said he has planned for a year to arrest Obama under a Kansas law that allows a person to make an arrest.
"The law says if the person has probable cause to believe a person is guilty of a felony," Jednoralski said. "'Cause to believe' is pretty wide."
He wanted to bring Obama to Topeka for the courts to decide if he was eligible to be president.
Jednoralski first posted his intentions online in 2010. Until Monday's visit by the Secret Service, he publicly posted on his Facebook page that he planned to carry out the arrest in Osawatomie.
"I had no thought of endangering the president," said Jednoralski, who believes the Secret Service violated his rights by taking his guns. "I just wanted the courts to decide if he is eligible to be president."
___
Information from: The Salina Journal, http://www.salina.com
Paul Craig Roberts Signs Off, Says #American #Truth Has Fallen and Taken #Liberty With It
---
Source on The American View
---
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
There was a time when the pen was mightier than the sword. That was a time when people believed in truth and regarded truth as an independent power and not as an auxiliary for government, class, race, ideological, personal, or financial interest.
Today Americans are ruled by propaganda. Americans have little regard for truth, little access to it, and little ability to recognize it.
Truth is an unwelcome entity. It is disturbing. It is off limits. Those who speak it run the risk of being branded “anti-American,” “anti-semite” or “conspiracy theorist.”
Truth is an inconvenience for government and for the interest groups whose campaign contributions control government.
Truth is an inconvenience for prosecutors who want convictions, not the discovery of innocence or guilt.
Truth is inconvenient for ideologues.
Today many whose goal once was the discovery of truth are now paid handsomely to hide it. “Free market economists” are paid to sell offshoring to the American people. High-productivity, high value-added American jobs are denigrated as dirty, old industrial jobs. Relicts from long ago, we are best shed of them. Their place has been taken by “the New Economy,” a mythical economy that allegedly consists of high-tech white collar jobs in which Americans innovate and finance activities that occur offshore. All Americans need in order to participate in this “new economy” are finance degrees from Ivy League universities, and then they will work on Wall Street at million dollar jobs.
Economists who were once respectable took money to contribute to this myth of “the New Economy.”
And not only economists sell their souls for filthy lucre. Recently we have had reports of medical doctors who, for money, have published in peer-reviewed journals concocted “studies” that hype this or that new medicine produced by pharmaceutical companies that paid for the “studies.”
The Council of Europe is investigating the drug companies’ role in hyping a false swine flu pandemic in order to gain billions of dollars in sales of the vaccine.
The media helped the US military hype its recent Marja offensive in Afghanistan, describing Marja as a city of 80,000 under Taliban control. It turns out that Marja is not urban but a collection of village farms.
And there is the global warming scandal, in which NGOs. the UN, and the nuclear industry colluded in concocting a doomsday scenario in order to create profit in pollution.
Wherever one looks, truth has fallen to money.
Wherever money is insufficient to bury the truth, ignorance, propaganda, and short memories finish the job.
I remember when, following CIA director William Colby’s testimony before the Church Committee in the mid-1970s, presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan issued executive orders preventing the CIA and U.S. black-op groups from assassinating foreign leaders. In 2010 the US Congress was told by Dennis Blair, head of national intelligence, that the US now assassinates its own citizens in addition to foreign leaders.
When Blair told the House Intelligence Committee that US citizens no longer needed to be arrested, charged, tried, and convicted of a capital crime, just murdered on suspicion alone of being a “threat,” he wasn’t impeached. No investigation pursued. Nothing happened. There was no Church Committee. In the mid-1970s the CIA got into trouble for plots to kill Castro. Today it is American citizens who are on the hit list. Whatever objections there might be don’t carry any weight. No one in government is in any trouble over the assassination of U.S. citizens by the U.S. government.
As an economist, I am astonished that the American economics profession has no awareness whatsoever that the U.S. economy has been destroyed by the offshoring of U.S. GDP to overseas countries. U.S. corporations, in pursuit of absolute advantage or lowest labor costs and maximum CEO “performance bonuses,” have moved the production of goods and services marketed to Americans to China, India, and elsewhere abroad. When I read economists describe offshoring as free trade based on comparative advantage, I realize that there is no intelligence or integrity in the American economics profession.
Intelligence and integrity have been purchased by money. The transnational or global U.S. corporations pay multi-million dollar compensation packages to top managers, who achieve these “performance awards” by replacing U.S. labor with foreign labor. While Washington worries about “the Muslim threat,” Wall Street, U.S. corporations and “free market” shills destroy the U.S. economy and the prospects of tens of millions of Americans.
Americans, or most of them, have proved to be putty in the hands of the police state.
Americans have bought into the government’s claim that security requires the suspension of civil liberties and accountable government. Astonishingly, Americans, or most of them, believe that civil liberties, such as habeas corpus and due process, protect “terrorists,” and not themselves. Many also believe that the Constitution is a tired old document that prevents government from exercising the kind of police state powers necessary to keep Americans safe and free.
Most Americans are unlikely to hear from anyone who would tell them any different.
I was associate editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal. I was Business Week’s first outside columnist, a position I held for 15 years. I was columnist for a decade for Scripps Howard News Service, carried in 300 newspapers. I was a columnist for the Washington Times and for newspapers in France and Italy and for a magazine in Germany. I was a contributor to the New York Times and a regular feature in the Los Angeles Times. Today I cannot publish in, or appear on, the American “mainstream media.”
For the last six years I have been banned from the “mainstream media.” My last column in the New York Times appeared in January, 2004, coauthored with Democratic U.S. Senator Charles Schumer representing New York. We addressed the offshoring of U.S. jobs. Our op-ed article produced a conference at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. and live coverage by C-Span. A debate was launched. No such thing could happen today.
For years I was a mainstay at the Washington Times, producing credibility for the Moony newspaper as a Business Week columnist, former Wall Street Journal editor, and former Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. But when I began criticizing Bush’s wars of aggression, the order came down to Mary Lou Forbes to cancel my column.
The American corporate media does not serve the truth. It serves the government and the interest groups that empower the government.
America’s fate was sealed when the public and the anti-war movement bought the government’s 9/11 conspiracy theory. The government’s account of 9/11 is contradicted by much evidence. Nevertheless, this defining event of our time, which has launched the US on interminable wars of aggression and a domestic police state, is a taboo topic for investigation in the media. It is pointless to complain of war and a police state when one accepts the premise upon which they are based.
These trillion dollar wars have created financing problems for Washington’s deficits and threaten the U.S. dollar’s role as world reserve currency. The wars and the pressure that the budget deficits put on the dollar’s value have put Social Security and Medicare on the chopping block. Former Goldman Sachs chairman and U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson is after these protections for the elderly. Fed chairman Bernanke is also after them. The Republicans are after them as well. These protections are called “entitlements” as if they are some sort of welfare that people have not paid for in payroll taxes all their working lives.
With over 21 per cent unemployment as measured by the methodology of 1980, with American jobs, GDP, and technology having been given to China and India, with war being Washington’s greatest commitment, with the dollar over-burdened with debt, with civil liberty sacrificed to the “war on terror,” the liberty and prosperity of the American people have been thrown into the trash bin of history.
The militarism of the U.S. and Israeli states, and Wall Street and corporate greed, will now run their course. As the pen is censored and its might extinguished, I am signing off.
Paul Craig Roberts was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. His latest book, HOW THE ECONOMY WAS LOST, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
---
Source on The American View
---
Source on The American View
---
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
There was a time when the pen was mightier than the sword. That was a time when people believed in truth and regarded truth as an independent power and not as an auxiliary for government, class, race, ideological, personal, or financial interest.
Today Americans are ruled by propaganda. Americans have little regard for truth, little access to it, and little ability to recognize it.
Truth is an unwelcome entity. It is disturbing. It is off limits. Those who speak it run the risk of being branded “anti-American,” “anti-semite” or “conspiracy theorist.”
Truth is an inconvenience for government and for the interest groups whose campaign contributions control government.
Truth is an inconvenience for prosecutors who want convictions, not the discovery of innocence or guilt.
Truth is inconvenient for ideologues.
Today many whose goal once was the discovery of truth are now paid handsomely to hide it. “Free market economists” are paid to sell offshoring to the American people. High-productivity, high value-added American jobs are denigrated as dirty, old industrial jobs. Relicts from long ago, we are best shed of them. Their place has been taken by “the New Economy,” a mythical economy that allegedly consists of high-tech white collar jobs in which Americans innovate and finance activities that occur offshore. All Americans need in order to participate in this “new economy” are finance degrees from Ivy League universities, and then they will work on Wall Street at million dollar jobs.
Economists who were once respectable took money to contribute to this myth of “the New Economy.”
And not only economists sell their souls for filthy lucre. Recently we have had reports of medical doctors who, for money, have published in peer-reviewed journals concocted “studies” that hype this or that new medicine produced by pharmaceutical companies that paid for the “studies.”
The Council of Europe is investigating the drug companies’ role in hyping a false swine flu pandemic in order to gain billions of dollars in sales of the vaccine.
The media helped the US military hype its recent Marja offensive in Afghanistan, describing Marja as a city of 80,000 under Taliban control. It turns out that Marja is not urban but a collection of village farms.
And there is the global warming scandal, in which NGOs. the UN, and the nuclear industry colluded in concocting a doomsday scenario in order to create profit in pollution.
Wherever one looks, truth has fallen to money.
Wherever money is insufficient to bury the truth, ignorance, propaganda, and short memories finish the job.
I remember when, following CIA director William Colby’s testimony before the Church Committee in the mid-1970s, presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan issued executive orders preventing the CIA and U.S. black-op groups from assassinating foreign leaders. In 2010 the US Congress was told by Dennis Blair, head of national intelligence, that the US now assassinates its own citizens in addition to foreign leaders.
When Blair told the House Intelligence Committee that US citizens no longer needed to be arrested, charged, tried, and convicted of a capital crime, just murdered on suspicion alone of being a “threat,” he wasn’t impeached. No investigation pursued. Nothing happened. There was no Church Committee. In the mid-1970s the CIA got into trouble for plots to kill Castro. Today it is American citizens who are on the hit list. Whatever objections there might be don’t carry any weight. No one in government is in any trouble over the assassination of U.S. citizens by the U.S. government.
As an economist, I am astonished that the American economics profession has no awareness whatsoever that the U.S. economy has been destroyed by the offshoring of U.S. GDP to overseas countries. U.S. corporations, in pursuit of absolute advantage or lowest labor costs and maximum CEO “performance bonuses,” have moved the production of goods and services marketed to Americans to China, India, and elsewhere abroad. When I read economists describe offshoring as free trade based on comparative advantage, I realize that there is no intelligence or integrity in the American economics profession.
Intelligence and integrity have been purchased by money. The transnational or global U.S. corporations pay multi-million dollar compensation packages to top managers, who achieve these “performance awards” by replacing U.S. labor with foreign labor. While Washington worries about “the Muslim threat,” Wall Street, U.S. corporations and “free market” shills destroy the U.S. economy and the prospects of tens of millions of Americans.
Americans, or most of them, have proved to be putty in the hands of the police state.
Americans have bought into the government’s claim that security requires the suspension of civil liberties and accountable government. Astonishingly, Americans, or most of them, believe that civil liberties, such as habeas corpus and due process, protect “terrorists,” and not themselves. Many also believe that the Constitution is a tired old document that prevents government from exercising the kind of police state powers necessary to keep Americans safe and free.
Most Americans are unlikely to hear from anyone who would tell them any different.
I was associate editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal. I was Business Week’s first outside columnist, a position I held for 15 years. I was columnist for a decade for Scripps Howard News Service, carried in 300 newspapers. I was a columnist for the Washington Times and for newspapers in France and Italy and for a magazine in Germany. I was a contributor to the New York Times and a regular feature in the Los Angeles Times. Today I cannot publish in, or appear on, the American “mainstream media.”
For the last six years I have been banned from the “mainstream media.” My last column in the New York Times appeared in January, 2004, coauthored with Democratic U.S. Senator Charles Schumer representing New York. We addressed the offshoring of U.S. jobs. Our op-ed article produced a conference at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. and live coverage by C-Span. A debate was launched. No such thing could happen today.
For years I was a mainstay at the Washington Times, producing credibility for the Moony newspaper as a Business Week columnist, former Wall Street Journal editor, and former Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. But when I began criticizing Bush’s wars of aggression, the order came down to Mary Lou Forbes to cancel my column.
The American corporate media does not serve the truth. It serves the government and the interest groups that empower the government.
America’s fate was sealed when the public and the anti-war movement bought the government’s 9/11 conspiracy theory. The government’s account of 9/11 is contradicted by much evidence. Nevertheless, this defining event of our time, which has launched the US on interminable wars of aggression and a domestic police state, is a taboo topic for investigation in the media. It is pointless to complain of war and a police state when one accepts the premise upon which they are based.
These trillion dollar wars have created financing problems for Washington’s deficits and threaten the U.S. dollar’s role as world reserve currency. The wars and the pressure that the budget deficits put on the dollar’s value have put Social Security and Medicare on the chopping block. Former Goldman Sachs chairman and U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson is after these protections for the elderly. Fed chairman Bernanke is also after them. The Republicans are after them as well. These protections are called “entitlements” as if they are some sort of welfare that people have not paid for in payroll taxes all their working lives.
With over 21 per cent unemployment as measured by the methodology of 1980, with American jobs, GDP, and technology having been given to China and India, with war being Washington’s greatest commitment, with the dollar over-burdened with debt, with civil liberty sacrificed to the “war on terror,” the liberty and prosperity of the American people have been thrown into the trash bin of history.
The militarism of the U.S. and Israeli states, and Wall Street and corporate greed, will now run their course. As the pen is censored and its might extinguished, I am signing off.
Paul Craig Roberts was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. His latest book, HOW THE ECONOMY WAS LOST, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
---
Source on The American View
---
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
New evidence that confirms Halliburton is activating [#FEMA] detention camps in the United States
---
Link back to Alex Jones website
---
"Who cares if idiots laugh at you who are uninformed?" -Alex Jones
---
Don't EVER say nobody told you!
Greg
Link back to Alex Jones website
---
"Who cares if idiots laugh at you who are uninformed?" -Alex Jones
---
Don't EVER say nobody told you!
Greg
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Five things you can do right now to help stop the economic plundering of our world - Natural News
---
Tuesday, December 06, 2011
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com
(NaturalNews) The economic plundering of our world is well under way, with the Goldman Sachs "white shoe boyz" taking over entire national economies as they confiscate the wealth of the working class. They aren't the only evildoers wreaking havoc across the world, of course: A cabal of powerful and criminally-insane corporations are destroying the future of food, plotting to keep citizens suffering from disease, and even perpetuating war so they can earn obscene profits from selling more bullets, bombs and missiles.
You can help resist this economic imperialism by taking simple actions that protect your wealth and pull it out of the hands of the globalists who are actively destroying our world. Here are five of the most powerful action steps to take that can turn the tables and restore economic sovereignty at every level -- household, community, state, nation and the entire globe.
[Please] Continue reading
Tuesday, December 06, 2011
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com
(NaturalNews) The economic plundering of our world is well under way, with the Goldman Sachs "white shoe boyz" taking over entire national economies as they confiscate the wealth of the working class. They aren't the only evildoers wreaking havoc across the world, of course: A cabal of powerful and criminally-insane corporations are destroying the future of food, plotting to keep citizens suffering from disease, and even perpetuating war so they can earn obscene profits from selling more bullets, bombs and missiles.
You can help resist this economic imperialism by taking simple actions that protect your wealth and pull it out of the hands of the globalists who are actively destroying our world. Here are five of the most powerful action steps to take that can turn the tables and restore economic sovereignty at every level -- household, community, state, nation and the entire globe.
[Please] Continue reading
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)